Maybe I'm desensitized.

Post #8,322 by marlowe 9/11/01 12:50:31 PM Reply	Maybe I'm desensitized. I got exposed to a lot of brutal violence and brutish stupidity growing up, and not all of it was on TV. People close to me died pointless deaths before they were old enough to drive. I was too stubborn to ever buy into that way of existing, but I never could figure out how to effectively resist it. I've long observed that our civilization is in a steady moral decline, and tend to meet it with a shrug of learned helplessness. When I read the Old Testment once (parts of it twice) I emphasized with the prophet Jeremiah. but I don't think I have it in me to persist in an exercise in futility such as his. I can only bring myself to sit on the sidelines and kvetch. I don't think it's dulled my moral sense, however. I'm certainly more morally aware than the kids I grew up with. Or the average politician or CEO. But I'm not really in a position to measure that objectively. If I knew what to do to beat back human evil, what would actually work, I'd do it in a heartbeat. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,330 by brettj 9/11/01 1:20:39 PM Reply	Maybe we can learn something useful from this cruelty. Somehow I think that there is a lesson to be learned here, not just for the U.S. but for the entire world. I'm just not sure what that lesson is yet. If the U.S. responds in rage and similar violence then I fear we are no more ethical than the inhuman cowards that have committed this attack.
Post #8,349 by bluke 9/11/01 2:56:01 PM Reply	Not the people in this group Andrew Grygus is advocating we drop nuclear weapons on Islamic countries. Others are advocating a return top colonialism. The hypocrisy of the average American is unbelievable. When it is happening to someone else, Americans say, show restraint, don't escalate, negotiate, etc. When it happens to them, suddenly it is lets drop nuclear weapons on them.
Post #8,355 by mmoffitt 9/11/01 3:06:27 PM Reply	Difficult to reason with some one motivated by conviction. You can deal with people who are motivated by financial gain. You cannot deal (nor even defeat) people motivated by conviction, particularly if it is a religious conviction. The scariest thing I saw during the Iran/Iraq War was an image that haunts me to this day. It was little Iranian children walking into fields in front of Iranian soldiers. They were little "mine detectors". On their t-shirts were written the words (translated by a friend of mine who speaks Farsi (sp?)) "The Ayatollah has granted me the Supreme Right to meet Allah." I thought then, and I think now, that a people who would allow that cannot be reasoned with. If those people are convinced that we are infidels, that their god wants us dead, what reaction can we make that doesn't involve annihilation? Not happy about it, but not seeing too many options, Mikem
Post #8,360 by bluke 9/11/01 3:16:00 PM Reply	And therefore what? Does that give you the right to arbitrarily kill hundreds of thousands of people with a nuclear bomb. How are you any better then the terrorists who perpetrated this act?
Post #8,373 by drewk 9/11/01 3:27:07 PM Reply	Nothing arbitrary about it Find the people who did it. Take them out. If they are hiding among the innocent, tell those innocents to expel them. If they don't, they are complicit. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #8,378 by bluke 9/11/01 3:35:34 PM Reply	It is not so simple Take the case of Iraq. there are alot of innocent people who live in Iraq. Do you think they can just throw out the guilty? The countries that that are involved are dictatorships, the innocent have no rights whatsoever.
Post #8,423 by marlowe 9/11/01 5:39:52 PM Reply	No responsible adult is ever fully innocent. These people acquiesce to their governments. Why is there no bloody mass uprising of the people against Saddam Hussein? Because anyone who opposes him will die? This is only an acceptable reason to those who would rather let evil flourish than die fighting it. Granted, that's most people, but that doesn't make it right. And how did he get so strong in the first place? Surely there was a point in history where he could easily have been removed from power by the people. That hour has passed, but whose fault is that? I oppose nuking the country responsible for these attacks. I oppose this because innocent children would die. But I would shed few tears for their parents. Maybe they could have done something, maybe not. But they could have at least tried. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,498 by bluke 9/12/01 3:04:47 AM Reply	Easy for you to say you (and I) grew up in free countries. I have spoken to people who lived in the former Soviet Union, you can't imagine what it was like. The government was everywhere, anyone you talk to could be a government agent, phones were tapped, etc. In a climate like that it is very difficult for anyone to do anything.
Post #8,665 by marlowe 9/12/01 4:02:06 PM Reply	Maybe you're right. But what I have to wonder about is... how do these countries get that way in the first place? What is it about the people that they allow things to come to such a state? I've known Russian Jews, and I've seen the haunted look in their eyes. I haven't been where they've been. I've been down that road, but not as far. I've known repression and fear, but not to that degree. I know that when confronted with the more moderate forms, there are two ways you can go: resist or submit. Both may be futile. Both lead to pain. The question becomes: which type of pain can you more easily accept? I'll take getting beat up repeatedly over not being able to bear facing myself in the mirror. In fact, I've made that choice a few times. More recently in life, I've chosen getting fired over kissing ass or consenting to lies. I haven't yet put my life on the line in a cool, calculating fashion. Well, actually I have risked my life on several occasions, but not in that frame of mind. Actually, my life would have been at risk either way, but I chose the more immediate hazard. I grew up in one of the less free corners of a free country, amongst people of a certain ethnicity, of which those Palestinians on TV remind me vividly. This is one American who does not take freedom and safety for granted. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,404 by mmoffitt 9/11/01 4:03:53 PM Reply	I was attempting to explain the sentiment. This issue is complicated. Look at the Taliban. There is a government that we helped establish that is currently prosecuting European and American missionaries for the heinous crime of evangalism. The penalty if convicted? Death. I don't pretend to understand that culture and I have no interest, on the contrary, I have a strong interest in blocking any part of that culture becoming a part of my own. I'm merely pointing out that, unlike what some of my liberal friends would have you believe, those protestors in the streets of Palestine, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. celebrating the disaster here are not all out there out of fear of retribution from their governments. Many are out there because they hold (firmly) that God is actually happy about this slaughter. You wanna invite their representatives for tea? And what would the negotiations be like? US: "You've got to realize that your religion is wrong. We shouldn't all be killed because we do not worship Allah as you do." What do you think the reaction would be?
Post #8,359 by Andrew Grygus 9/11/01 3:15:00 PM Reply	I do not advocate use of nuclear weapons . . . . unless there really isn't a reasonable alternative. It should be avoided if at all possible. I think the bombs dropped on Japan should not have been dropped, at least not on cities. I don't think it was necessary to cause that much destruction at that point. Same with Dresden (non-nuclear but just as bad). I do think the threat should be on the table. In the extreme, I suspect a "demonstration" might get people to take the possibility a bit more seriously. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,363 by bluke 9/11/01 3:19:07 PM Reply	How is a nuclear weapon ever a reasonable alternative? A nuclear weapon dropped on any country will kill hundreds of thousands of people, poisin the area around for miles cause fallout who know where, etc. If that is not a war crime then what is?
Post #8,407 by addison 9/11/01 4:14:58 PM Reply	You've got to stop thinking with your emotions. A nuclear weapon dropped on any country will kill hundreds of thousands of people, poisin the area around for miles cause fallout who know where, etc. Nope, nope, and nope. It might, I grant you. But the effect of an atomic explosion differ wildly based on lots of things. Target, height of explosion, makeup of surrounding area, make of weapon, all sorts of things. But if you're killed or mortally wounded by ANYTHING it Really Doesn't Matter That Much What By. If that is not a war crime then what is? [trolling trolling trolling] Blowing up old guys with 5 anti-tank rockets as they putter home in a VW Bug?[/trolling trolling trolling] Addison
Post #8,466 by bluke 9/11/01 10:32:58 PM Reply	So tell me ... Why are chemical weapons outlawed, does it matter if you die from a bullet or poison gas? How about dum-dum bullets? The fact is that even war has rules, and 1 of the rules these days is that you don't indiscrimanately kill hundreds of thousands of people, men women and children.
Post #8,468 by Steve Lowe 9/11/01 10:59:23 PM Reply	Re: So tell me ... So how many of the people killed today were innocent civilians? Men, Women, Children. Obviously, terrorists do not follow the "rules of war". There's also a long-standing suspicion of chemical weapons development in countries such as Iraq. Why should a response follow them? While I don't think lowering ourselves to the same level is either warranted or necessary, sometimes fire must be fought with fire. Not that I at all support using nuclear weapons...but you're kinda going off the deep end here. People here are in shock and afraid. The first reaction is retaliation, massive retaliation. Immediate and swift revenge. Primal even. It's a knee-jerk reflex, just like when some whacko shoots someone in a school, there is a knee-jerk call for massive gun controls. Living where you do, I'm sure you see and feel that frequently. In fact, I'll bet that there are similar discussions on Israeli forums, chat rooms, etc. regarding Palestinian terrorist attacks. And, what's said here, in no way reflects what the US is planning, or even likely to do. ----- Steve
Post #8,469 by addison 9/11/01 11:31:37 PM Reply	So you tell me... you don't indiscrimanately kill hundreds of thousands of people, men women and children. Who said anything about that? Other than you, with your misunderstanding of the use of atomic weapons. And just for the record, (and for effect) right now, you might want to check who's shooting innocent people, men, women, and children.... Addison
Post #8,496 by bluke 9/12/01 2:59:01 AM Reply	Do you seriously believ that the US can drop a nuclear ... weapon and not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have you ever read the Geneva Convention particularly the article relating to civilians? Here is 1 quote: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: C. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Post #8,524 by addison 9/12/01 9:09:20 AM Reply	Yes. Because I am not an idiot. However, I believe that you are. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have you ever read the Geneva Convention particularly the article relating to civilians? Here is 1 quote: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. What's the DATE on that? You dumbass, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were CITIES that were targetting. I'd tell you to learn to read, but its obvious you can't LEARN. THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 800 ATOMIC WEAPONS DETONATED IN THE OPEN AIR. 2 KILLED CIVILLIANS. Not that facts have ever deterred you from your idiocy. Addison
Post #8,651 by bluke 9/12/01 3:23:24 PM Reply	Really What does the fact that nuclear weapons were TESTED in the open air have to do with actually using against them a real target? Any target that a nuclear weapon is used against will invariably have civilians nearby.
Post #8,663 by addison 9/12/01 3:59:20 PM Reply	Really???? Any target that a nuclear weapon is used against will invariably have civilians nearby. There are no military bases anymore? Please discuss the blast range, deployment, effect and radius of the atomic weaponry in the US arsenal. Or the Israeli arsenal, if you prefer. Addison
Post #8,666 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 4:05:23 PM Reply	Lets' give 'im a break After all, it doesn't seem that he has any military experience and only knows what is on the kiddie books, the big ICBMs. Tactical nuclear weapons? Wazzz dat? [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #8,804 by bluke 9/13/01 3:24:09 AM Reply	And what do you know about tactical nukes??? The US shelved most of their tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1990's . The US only deploys 2 tactical nuclear weapons types today the Tomahawk TLAM-N SLCM (BGM-109A) which has a yield of 200 kilotons and B61 Mod-3,-4,-10 gravity bomb (tactical) which has a yeild from .3 to 170 kilotons. Considering that these are gravity bombs they will most probably not be used. Therefore we are taking about a 200 kiloton warhead. All this info is from here: [link\|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef\|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef]&f/database/usnukes.html#nonstrat here is 1 quote: "The U.S. once deployed the entire panoply of tactical nuclear weapons (from nuclear artillery and demolition mines to short-range rockets and even air-to-air missiles). However, nearly all have been removed and are slated for destruction, largely as a result of President Bush's unilateral initiative of September 27, 1991. Indeed, the only operational non-strategic forces are currently the B61 tactical bombs, largely allocated for use in Europe (and perhaps the TLAM-N SLCMs, though these could arguably be considered strategic, and are in storage in any case.)"
Post #8,847 by addison 9/13/01 10:05:18 AM Reply	Far more than you. Trust me, that site is wrong. Well, no, sorry. Not wrong. Very very very incomplete. Just to make a point: the "Davy Crockett" isn't there. So are you petitioning Israel to shed themselves of their nukes? Addison
Post #8,936 by bluke 9/13/01 3:38:05 PM Reply	Of course, you are right and everyone is wrong
Post #8,941 by addison 9/13/01 4:05:30 PM Reply	Run Away! Run Away! At least in your case, yes. I know a HELL OF A LOT more about atomics than you. I just told you of a SPECIFIC weapon completely ignored on that page. So its hardly complete. There's 2 man-portable devices I know of. Unmentioned. The common thing to do when you're shown to be wrong is apologise - or at least fess up. But I wasn't expecting better from you. Addison
Post #8,751 by marlowe 9/12/01 9:47:35 PM Reply	I don't think Bin Laden has his bases in the South Pacific And that's the only conceivable place on earth where Bluke's point would fail to be valid, and your objection would have any weight whatsoever. Well, let me modify that. Antarctica would also be okay, but only if we evacuate the scientists. And the northern part of Greenland might be civilian-safe as well, if we forcibly remove the Inuits from those latitudes. Addison, if you keep detonating gems like this, you're going to have to expect to catch a lot of fallout. The prevailing wind of logic keeps carrying your toxic crap back around to you. The real trouble with idiots is they're all aboslutely positive that they're not idiots. A lot of the time Bluke doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but his track record is still better than yours. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,777 by addison 9/12/01 10:50:09 PM Reply	Just shorten that to "I don't think" and you'll be right. And that's the only conceivable place on earth where Bluke's point would fail to be valid, and your objection would have any weight whatsoever. Then answer the question posed to him. Or shut up, because you're wrong. Addison, if you keep detonating gems like this, you're going to have to expect to catch a lot of fallout. The prevailing wind of logic keeps carrying your toxic crap back around to you. Logic? I'd tell you to give me a break, but you're so stupid you can't realise HOW stupid you are. Want to snipe at me? Fine. But you now have 2 questions outstanding that you're running from. Either answer them, or shut the fuck up. The real trouble with idiots is they're all aboslutely positive that they're not idiots. A lot of the time Bluke doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but his track record is still better than yours. Then answer the questions posed to you. Addison
Post #8,487 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:39:35 AM Reply	War has rules? Rather an ironic thing to say of the ultimate breakdown of civility between two parties. Total war has no rules. A war with rules is less than a total war. Not that that's a bad thing. But it's an unsustainable thing. War is hell, and only demons really want it. Best to get it over with quickly. Let's completely neutralize the threat in as prompt a fashion as we can manage, and then get on with our lives. And if the terrorists don't like it, well, they shouldn't have started it. So there. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,494 by bluke 9/12/01 2:55:14 AM Reply	It certainly does Read the Geneva Convention ([link\|http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm\|http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm]) there is a whole section dealing with the treatment of civilians during war.
Post #8,488 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:43:09 AM Reply	What does it matter where you lie when you're dead... in a marble palace on a hill, or a pile of smoking rubble downtown? You're dead, you're sleeping the big sleep. You're beyond caring about things like rules. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,497 by bluke 9/12/01 3:01:46 AM Reply	So tell me why are chemical weapons outlawed ... after all according to your theory the person is dead either way.
Post #8,511 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 8:13:21 AM Reply	Were you ever in the military? Chemical weapons may be "outlawed", but we sure did spend a lot of time on preparing for chemical attacks.... yes, the book of Hoyle may say the it's not nice to use chemicals or cause collateral damage, but guess what... [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #8,350 by bluke 9/11/01 2:57:22 PM Reply	Not the people in this group Andrew Grygus is advocating we drop nuclear weapons on Islamic countries. Others are advocating a return top colonialism. The hypocrisy of the average American is unbelievable. When it is happening to someone else, Americans say, show restraint, don't escalate, negotiate, etc. When it happens to them, suddenly it is lets drop nuclear weapons on them.
Post #8,377 by wharris2 9/11/01 3:34:22 PM Reply	"Americans say"? I've never said "show restraint". What I say is "make sure you've got the right target". The Israelis have, in the past few months, had a number of times when they have not shown much discrimination about what and how accurately they bombarded. Although Dullard Powell and his state department might want restraint, I'm all in favor of assassination teams and rockets sent through windows. Just make sure they're the right people. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #8,381 by bluke 9/11/01 3:37:02 PM Reply	Sorry I meant the US State Departmnt etc.
Post #8,362 by wharris2 9/11/01 3:18:26 PM Reply	A different take If the U.S. responds in rage and similar violence then I fear we are no more ethical than the inhuman cowards that have committed this attack. I tend to disagrree. Oh, I agree, to act in hot blinding rage is probably bad, but it would be justified - if we find *the right targets. I think this very incident is exactly the kind of thing that might happen when you have a whacked foreign policy. Remember when a bozo in the White House ordered a bomb strike against the wrong targets? Remember when Clinton bombed that asprin factory to take national attention off the Lewinski scandal? Yeah, bombing is an acceptable instrument of foreign policy (although you can argue he should have gotten Congressional approval), but he got it wrong. I can see a lot of unfortunately justifiable rage over that one incident alone. I'd bet, whatever other provocation whoever did this may perceive, it's the truly cosmically dufoid incidents like those that provided the final suicidal spark. Because it was a suicide attack, one almost assumes an Islamic origin - but we don't know. What we need to do is find out who did it and maul them mercilessly - whether done in rage or with a grim sense of justice is almost immaterial. But we need to get it right*. One of my biggest fears is that a month will go by, and then, all the evidence having been obliterated in the various crashes, they'll find a fall guy (bin Ladin is sure convenient) and take erroneous action. Thus further fueling the cycle. The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy isi. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. - Ulysses S. Grant

Welcome to IWETHEY!